Your a donkey if you think i hammered. Considering i had the lead vote on him for a whilemtamburini wrote:UNVOTE
Am I too late?
Jonty put him l-1
i then unvoted.
Moderator: Community Team
Your a donkey if you think i hammered. Considering i had the lead vote on him for a whilemtamburini wrote:UNVOTE
Am I too late?

Correct.StorrZerg wrote:In fact, the second push i presented against you, he didn't defend. I assume that was cause he thought the second push against you was reasonable and worth looking at.
No, I suggested avoiding a no lynch. That second post was merely pointing out that we should be careful, and aware of the risks when we're lynching.Iron Butterfly wrote: Mets suggested a no lynch, which is stupid and scummy if you ask me. We have no idea how the game is imbalanced and just because it may be does not mean "jesters, and tigers and bombs" oh my. A no lynch is never an option unless Town truly is at a dead end.
SUPER dyslexia moment thereStorrZerg wrote:Your a donkey if you think i hammered. Considering i had the lead vote on him for a whilemtamburini wrote:UNVOTE
Am I too late?
Jonty put him l-1
i then unvoted.
Why would you let a one shot vig shoot blindly?Streaker wrote:DISCLAIMER
Silver_Samus uses transform, and becomes Streaker. I will now continue with this account, as access is restored and the Silver account blocked. Yes, this has been worked out together with support so no reason to report me.
I once again apologize for the situation.
END DISCLAIMER
So, a one shot vig? Ready to shoot blindly into the night? I think I'm willing to let you do just that.
If we dont lynch virus, we'll need another. D1 inactive lynch? I'll need to check all posts again to see who would fit.
There are a few though posting plenty, without actually helping. But that's probably better served on D2.

I still think Virus might be mafia, after now realizing I cant read. Your back in my good books.StorrZerg wrote:tamboooo help me lynch a mafia
and if you are mafia, do me a favor and just start a lynch on your buddy kthx

At this juncture, I don't see the harm. It's not as informed as we would like, but it's going to be better than nothing. The question ought to be whether or not you believe the claim, not whether or not we should let him shoot. Because if we don't lynch him today, that begets a lot of different scenarios, some of which are actual-WFIOM-not-Mets-WIFOM, some which are not. Personally, I think if you explore the potential outcomes based on the nigh't outcome if we let him live, it does not benefit us.Iron Butterfly wrote:Why would you let a one shot vig shoot blindly?Streaker wrote:DISCLAIMER
Silver_Samus uses transform, and becomes Streaker. I will now continue with this account, as access is restored and the Silver account blocked. Yes, this has been worked out together with support so no reason to report me.
I once again apologize for the situation.
END DISCLAIMER
So, a one shot vig? Ready to shoot blindly into the night? I think I'm willing to let you do just that.
If we dont lynch virus, we'll need another. D1 inactive lynch? I'll need to check all posts again to see who would fit.
There are a few though posting plenty, without actually helping. But that's probably better served on D2.
The closest thing I got to that (and obviously it was not direct, seeing as Mets believes the silent treatment is a valid strategy) was a piss-poor spoonfed response:pancakemix wrote:What I want are some reasonable insights. If not virus, then who? And don't say random lynch is fine, because that's of no benefit to anyone.
All this to say I think Mets would rather coast than actually engage in debate, seeing as his preference for debate begins and ends with "Meh, no" and "Meh, okay".Metsfanmax wrote:Correct.StorrZerg wrote:In fact, the second push i presented against you, he didn't defend. I assume that was cause he thought the second push against you was reasonable and worth looking at.
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.

Good for you. You ARE the one who spoonfed him an out on virus, so I'm not surprised you'd think that. Riddle me this: do you think resolving to ignore someone is a legitimate way to end a debate?StorrZerg wrote:@ pm I do not find mets actions regarding your arguments alignment indicative.
Please stop tunneling on only him.
PM what is your opinion on ib? How about spiesr?
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
I like this vote only because I have no idea who this is. Are they even in this game ?StorrZerg wrote:vote Djfireside
Cause yeah.
I answered this request by voting for you and giving you reasons why I voted for you.pancakemix wrote: That being said, I have to stick to my guns in Mets. Beyond what I've already stated, I find ignoring an argument (and a player!) to be poor play and scummy play at that. I feel that I ultimately made a simple request:
pancakemix wrote:What I want are some reasonable insights. If not virus, then who? And don't say random lynch is fine, because that's of no benefit to anyone.
Yeah Im catching up on what occurred today. Overall had Wife/Job Aggro so got into a fun position. Got the prod and will post up thoughts shortly. My apologies to the rest of you.mtamburini wrote:I like this vote only because I have no idea who this is. Are they even in this game ?StorrZerg wrote:vote Djfireside
Cause yeah.
Well, I'm glad you decided to talk to me. You're still only reading half my posts, but we'll call it progress.Metsfanmax wrote:I answered this request by voting for you and giving you reasons why I voted for you.pancakemix wrote: That being said, I have to stick to my guns in Mets. Beyond what I've already stated, I find ignoring an argument (and a player!) to be poor play and scummy play at that. I feel that I ultimately made a simple request:
pancakemix wrote:What I want are some reasonable insights. If not virus, then who? And don't say random lynch is fine, because that's of no benefit to anyone.
Because normally you use, like, facts to back up arguments but these are just claims. I clearly explained my position and explained my arguments and how you were wrong. Please progress beyond easy, copout answers.Metsfanmax wrote:vote pancakemix, this time I'm serious. This entire argument has either been the worst mafia argument I've ever seen (in which case we need to drop you now) or the same misdirection you're accusing me of, in which case by your own logic you need to be lynched because you're scum. Good day.
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
Can you offer some explanation of this point? Why are scum more likely to mention that they think both players in an argument are town, and therefor Storr is more likely to be scum for having done so? Is it because they know that both of them are town and it is slipping out, or alternatively one of the arguers is a scum buddy and they want to seed to idea of them being town? Is it just some correlation you have observed that you have no explanation for?mtamburini wrote:I KNOW YOU JUST DIDNT SAY THAT, if this was DM group Id rally a to get a noose around your neck but I do not think there is enough time in the day to get that done and I am skeptical of my vote on Virus. GMEOY Storr you have entered my scum list.StorrZerg wrote:Let's be honest. Probably 2 town fighting with pm and mets.
Cool it with each other, look else where for a lynch. I don't see a point lynching either of you guys today.
One of the big things Ive noticed playing video mafia over the past year is that scum tend to like to point out and use the phrase "2 towns fighting" It helps a lot more than you may think.
This seems kinda bandwagony, but in my experience with Jonty I know that the idea that a Vig shouldn't shoot Night 1/anytime they aren't certain is one that he has been exposed to and probably absorbed himself. So, I can understand why he would cast this vote.jonty125 wrote:unvote, vote Virus for scummarining and as a 1-shot vig, you wouldn't shoot N1, even if you were outed, and also claiming a killing role seems a very easy fakeclaim for mafia (granted this is WIFOM) but the scummarining is the main point.
The entirety of my position is explained in, like, the last three pages. I don't need to recount all of them in the post where I vote in order for them to be more than, like, "claims."pancakemix wrote:Because normally you use, like, facts to back up arguments but these are just claims. I clearly explained my position and explained my arguments and how you were wrong. Please progress beyond easy, copout answers.Metsfanmax wrote:vote pancakemix, this time I'm serious. This entire argument has either been the worst mafia argument I've ever seen (in which case we need to drop you now) or the same misdirection you're accusing me of, in which case by your own logic you need to be lynched because you're scum. Good day.
Well, as it happens I do have some (limited) powers of logical deduction and although they are weak, they were enough to surmise that what you wanted was something other than "this case on virus is bad." You had outright said this or hinted at it several times before, as had multiple other people in response to my posts. So, there's no need to be impressed.Also I'm impressed how you gave me an answer (a bad one, but an answer) before I even made the request.
Could you explain a bit more why you think he is scummarining?jonty125 wrote:unvote, vote Virus for scummarining and as a 1-shot vig, you wouldn't shoot N1, even if you were outed, and also claiming a killing role seems a very easy fakeclaim for mafia (granted this is WIFOM) but the scummarining is the main point.
Streaker wrote:Could you explain a bit more (why) how you think he is scummarining?jonty125 wrote:unvote, vote Virus for scummarining and as a 1-shot vig, you wouldn't shoot N1, even if you were outed, and also claiming a killing role seems a very easy fakeclaim for mafia (granted this is WIFOM) but the scummarining is the main point.
This post was made 3 days ago.jonty125 wrote:See, I disagree that virus outed spiesr, I think spiesr was just confirming in a different way.StorrZerg wrote: Reasoning was 2 part jonty. I'd hardly consider outing someone as a role with your first post a joke.
This post and VOTE was made right after the claim from virus, when he was at L-2, this vote made him at L-1 RIGHT after a claim. Looking for a fast lynch after outed power role with a kill?jonty125 wrote:unvote, vote Virus for scummarining and as a 1-shot vig, you wouldn't shoot N1, even if you were outed, and also claiming a killing role seems a very easy fakeclaim for mafia (granted this is WIFOM) but the scummarining is the main point.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
No it does not. Obviously mafia have a NK, and it is likely that there are more killing roles in this game than that.Streaker wrote: 1)If we see a NK in the morning it basicly confirms his claim
Not necessarily. Mafia have a situation on their hands which makes their decision tricky, assuming that virus is town. If virus saves his kill for now and they kill him, then they're making our jobs as town easier because we no longer have to try to guess whether he is in fact town. Leaving him alive means that we may still lynch him for them on D2, especially if virus doesn't use his one shot. Town really has no way to confirm whether virus used his kill at night*; even if two people die tonight that doesn't guarantee anything. Plus, since everyone in this game is a power role, town loses by virus using his kill; unless he randomly hits mafia by chance, we're trading a power role to turn virus into a VT.2)If he does not use his kill, and his claim is true, mafia are likely to take out the guy with a kill ability